Firearm "registration"

[MikeD]

You are missing my point. I never said a dead person would fall under 128A.

What do you have against dead people?

 

[FITH]

Half cocked... the heck with the question you asked.....I have Q's ...Why are you asking? What do you want to do? How do you want use this info?

Because..it seems obvious ....that the "seller" is the responsible person for filing a FA-10...... Yte there are times when the reciever/ new owner must file,due to the giver not being able legally!!! (now I'm confusing myself...)

 

[jdubois]

No I do not agree. Just because the seller does not file the FA-10 does not trigger 128B.

Do you agree that 128A says that an LTC holder is only authorized to sell under 128A "PROVIDED" they fill out an FA-10 (or equiv)?

 

[Half Cocked]

I have posed this question to the two primary attorneys who are responsible for the legal training for the Municipal Police Training Council of Massachusetts as well as two attorneys who specialize in Firearms law training for Law Enforcement.

I have received two responses as of this time. Both responses agreed with my interpretation.

Everyone here seems to respect the opinion of Scrivener. I have sent a PM to Scrivener so as to forward the copies of the E-Mails for him to look at.

These are people whose opinions I have grown to respect as I have found them to be very accurate.

So when many intelligent people disagree over the interpretation of a law it must not be as clear cut as everyone thinks.

It is possible to have an intelligent legal debate without people calling others idiots and insulting them because they do not agree.

There is sometimes much more to a law than that which is written. The written law sometimes means nothing if there has been case law that supercedes it.

I am not an attorney and I will never profess to be an expert on anything. I happen to be someone who enjoys the law and enjoys the research of it and learning as much as I can. I hate when misinformation is put out and I certainly want to be corrected if I am wrong.

Unfortunately, I need to know why I am wrong when I am wrong. I am not in a position to just accept someones word for it. I need to see it and understand it.

I am in a position where I have multiple sources who I trust saying one thing as well as intelligent people here saying something else.

By nature and by my job I am a truth seeker and fact finder. I need to know DEFINITIVELY what the answer is and I am OK with it even if I am wrong.

I believe I owe that to my profession to be as knowledgeable as possible.

If some of you have a problem with that it speaks more about you than it does about me.

Many of you are sending me PM's which I appreciate because I agree that it is not good to confuse others that may be reading these threads.

The last thing anyone wants is for someone to just read part of these threads and formulate the wrong opinion.

 

[Scrivener]

I have posed this question to the two primary attorneys who are responsible for the legal training for the Municipal Police Training Council of Massachusetts as well as two attorneys who specialize in Firearms law training for Law Enforcement.

I have received two responses as of this time. Both responses agreed with my interpretation.

Everyone here seems to respect the opinion of Scrivener. I have sent a PM to Scrivener so as to forward the copies of the E-Mails for him to look at.

1. As I am not the only attorney on this forum, I see no compelling reason for being the only designated recipient of the legal opinions the OP now claims to rely upon.

2. IF these opinions are so compelling, why not simply post them here?

 

[jdubois]

I have posed this question to the two primary attorneys who BLAH BLAH BLAH

Ok, I can't get this guy to answer my direct questions, so I guess I'll just give up.

 

[Half Cocked]

Scrivener,

You seem to be a person who is respected by the readers of this forum. I would have thought it best discussed in a PM where I could forward you the copies of the e-mails so there would be no questions.

If you have no interest in this then when I get back to work I will attempt to cut and paste them onto here.

 

[Half Cocked]

Do you agree that 128A says that an LTC holder is only authorized to sell under 128A "PROVIDED" they fill out an FA-10 (or equiv)?

Sorry jdubois I missed your follow up question.

I do not read anywhere into 128A that the authorization is dependant upon the filing of the FA-10.

 

[jdubois]

I do not read anywhere into 128A that the authorization is dependant upon the filing of the FA-10.

Really?

"The provisions of section one hundred and twenty-eight shall not apply to any resident of the commonwealth [...] provided, however, that the seller has a firearm identification card or a license to carry firearms [...] and provided, further, that such resident reports within seven days, in writing to the executive director of the criminal history systems board on forms furnished by said executive director"

The above seems pretty clear to me. They're authorized PROVIDED they have an FID/LTC and PROVIDED they fill out the FA-10 (or whatever form the CHSB provides).

Are you still not reading that the same as I am??!?

(Help me out here, somebody else, am I barking up the wrong tree?)

 

[FPrice]

(Help me out here, somebody else, am I barking up the wrong tree?)

I would not classify it as an authorization but rather a requirement that an FA-10 be filed in order to make this a legal transfer.

Probably semantics more than any serious difference.

 

[kevin9]

jdubois, I'm with you. That is exactly the point I have made with halfcocked in a PM exchange. I've yet to see anything that changes my mind. Maybe the other lawyer's opinions he has mentioned might, but it would depend upon exactly what question was asked, the wording of the answer and their qualifications, experience and expertise. An opinion out of the AGs office would probably trump all.

 

[Half Cocked]

jdubois, I'm with you. That is exactly the point I have made with halfcocked in a PM exchange. I've yet to see anything that changes my mind. Maybe the other lawyer's opinions he has mentioned might, but it would depend upon exactly what question was asked, the wording of the answer and their qualifications, experience and expertise. An opinion out of the AGs office would probably trump all.

Kevin, I am working on an answer from the AG's office. I put in a call today.

I do not believe, and I could be wrong, that a seller violating 128A by not filing an FA-10 would make a buyer in violation of 128B.

They are two seperate laws and I do not believe that they are to be linked in such a way.

Do any of you who buy a gun from a private party know for sure that the seller sent in the FA-10?

 

[Half Cocked]

Kevin9,

I will post the e-mails when I get into my office and you will know who the attorneys are and the question that was asked and the wording of their response.

These attorneys are very qualified and have many published books on criminal law, including but not limited to firearms laws, and in addition to conducting the legal training for LEO's conduct legal training of search and seizure, narcotics and firearms to many district attorneys offices in Ma.

They are very qualified but they could be wrong as well.

I will ask the DA of my county for his interpretation of both sections when I see him on Thursday. I am sure it will be the first time he has ever read them!! LOL

I respect all that have continued to beat the crap out of me as many, not all, ha ha, are very intelligent and I mean no disrespect to anybody's opinion here.

I do not know who the he!! to believe at this point!! LOL LOL

 

[jdubois]

Kevin, I am working on an answer from the AG's office. I put in a call today.

Awesome! Thank you for doing that, that'll be very interesting to hear. And at least reasonably definitive as to whether you could expect to be prosecuted.

I do not believe, and I could be wrong, that a seller violating 128A by not filing an FA-10 would make a buyer in violation of 128B.

Well, I guess that's the real rub, huh? I think that's exactly what the law says, but I'm also willing to be admit I could be wrong.

They are two seperate laws and I do not believe that they are to be linked in such a way.

How can you possibly say that? 128B directly references 128A. That's about as linked as you can get.

You are admitting that a sale from somebody without an FID/LTC would cause 128B to come into effect, right? That's where I'm most confused by your argument. How you can say that the FID/LTC requirement in 128A is the authorizing requirement and the FA-10 requirement is a secondary, non-authorizing requirement when both requirements are worded EXACTLY the same in 128A?

Do any of you who buy a gun from a private party know for sure that the seller sent in the FA-10?

I agree the law as I interpret it puts undue burden on the buyer. But now we're discussing whether the law is rational, not what the law says.

 

[Half Cocked]

jdubois writes:

You are admitting that a sale from somebody without an FID/LTC would cause 128B to come into effect, right? That's where I'm most confused by your argument. How you can say that the FID/LTC requirement in 128A is the authorizing requirement and the FA-10 requirement is a secondary, non-authorizing requirement when both requirements are worded EXACTLY the same in 128A?

Because by statute Section 128B deals with purchasers and Section 128A deals with sellers.

I do not believe, that you can have person A violate law A which in turn makes person B in violation of law B.

Not a good example but a requirement for a drivers license under, I believe Chapter 90S8, states that you have to have the license in your possession while operating a motor vehicle. A violation of this does not make you Unlicensed under C90S10 which deals with unlicensed operators.

 

[Half Cocked]

Agreed jdubois, I will not attempt to figure whether the law is rational or not. LOL

 

[jdubois]

Agreed jdubois, I will not attempt to figure whether the law is rational or not. LOL

Hey, at least we found SOME common ground

As to the rest, I think we've both made our points and it's down to a simple disagreement now. I'm very interested in how the AG sees it.

 

[kevin9]

Halfcocked (and others), I should have included in my last post that case law (actual decisions) would also carry significant weight with me, probably more than any of the opinions offered. I expect the lawyers you are talking with, the AG office, and the firearms lawyers here, CrossX and Scrivener, would be knowledgeable of any such cases, if they exist, and would include them in their discussions.

 

[Scrivener]

I'm very interested in how the AG sees it.

Great idea. Yes, with that office's stellar track record of bringing clarity, reason and fairness to firearms law, what better source could there be?

 

[jdubois]

Halfcocked (and others), I should have included in my last post that case law (actual decisions) would also carry significant weight with me

+1

Yes, with that office's stellar track record of bringing clarity, reason and fairness to firearms law, what better source could there be?

 

[Half Cocked]

Halfcocked (and others), I should have included in my last post that case law (actual decisions) would also carry significant weight with me, probably more than any of the opinions offered. I expect the lawyers you are talking with, the AG office, and the firearms lawyers here, CrossX and Scrivener, would be knowledgeable of any such cases, if they exist, and would include them in their discussions.

Kevin9 you are absolutely correct.

 

[Half Cocked]

Great idea. Yes, with that office's stellar track record of bringing clarity, reason and fairness to firearms law, what better source could there be?

All sarcasm aside, unfortunately, absent any case law to the contrary the interpretation of the AG matters until challenged.

 

[Scrivener]

All sarcasm aside, unfortunately, absent any case law to the contrary the interpretation of the AG matters until challenged.

And mere words cannot express the depths of our gratitude for your involving the AG in this non-issue........

 

[Fsorrent]

Yeah, like the AG's interpretation of safe-firearms matters. [ROFL]

 

[Half Cocked]

And mere words cannot express the depths of our gratitude for your involving the AG in this non-issue........

I did not realize that I, as being a police officer needed the permission and gratitude of one Scrivener to seek a legal opinion of the AG's office on a matter that quite frankly is not as black and white as ANY of us realize.

I have a duty to MYSELF and my agency to try to get a definitive answer.

If the members of this forum do not want to hear or accept the answer that I receive then that is a decision that they would have to make for themselves.

I may not agree with decisions that come from the AG's office but I get paid to uphold them so therefore I need to know what they are.

 

[Tiktock]

If the AG's office is the only one whose answer you are willing to accept as fact, why not just have contacted them to begin with? Were you only planning to accept opinions that agreed with what you personally had already decided to be the correct answer? If everyone on this forum had said "You are SO right!" would you have still moved on, not accepted those answers as authentic, and went further? Why the one-sided skepticism only questioning people who didn't agree with you?

I think most of the negative reaction you've seen here is because you posed a legal question and it appears you had already made up your mind, rather than honestly seeking guidance.

 

[LoginName]

I did not realize that I, as being a police officer needed the permission and gratitude of one Scrivener to seek a legal opinion of the AG's office on a matter that quite frankly is not as black and white as ANY of us realize.

I have a duty to MYSELF and my agency to try to get a definitive answer.

If the members of this forum do not want to hear or accept the answer that I receive then that is a decision that they would have to make for themselves.

I may not agree with decisions that come from the AG's office but I get paid to uphold them so therefore I need to know what they are.

Assuming you don't hear from the AGs office (which is a good likelihood), I'd suggest contacting Chief Ron Glidden and get his opinion on the matter. He is after all the chairman of the Gun Control Advisory Board and has conducted state wide seminars for law enforcement officers with regard to firearms laws.

 

[Half Cocked]

If the AG's office is the only one whose answer you are willing to accept as fact, why not just have contacted them to begin with? Were you only planning to accept opinions that agreed with what you personally had already decided to be the correct answer? If everyone on this forum had said "You are SO right!" would you have still moved on, not accepted those answers as authentic, and went further? Why the one-sided skepticism only questioning people who didn't agree with you?

I think most of the negative reaction you've seen here is because you posed a legal question and it appears you had already made up your mind, rather than honestly seeking guidance.

I had my mind made up. I have an interpretation of the law that differs with people here. Kevin9 and Jdubois have made some legitimate points is outlining how they came up with their interpretations.

I was asking for people to show me where in the law they came up with those interpretations. Only Kevin9 and Jdubois actually pinpointed it. They make a compelling argument. We agree to disagree. Respectfully, I might add, from my view point.

If everyone always agreed...then nobody is thinking!!!

 

[Admin]

If everyone always agreed...then nobody is thinking!!!

I agree

 

[jdubois]

I'd suggest contacting Chief Ron Glidden and get his opinion on the matter.

Look at the sticky thread right above this one named "Reporting Sales, Purchases, Acquisitions for MA - FA-10's". It has Ron Glidden's interpretation of this very question in it. He seems to agree with Half Cocked.